Obama and Gay Marriage

Al-Akhbar is currently going through a transitional phase whereby the English website is available for Archival purposes only. All new content will be published in Arabic on the main website (www.al-akhbar.com).

Al-Akhbar Management

By As'ad AbuKhalil - Fri, 2012-05-11 14:50- Angry Corner

Yet again, this cynical and unprincipled president shows how far he will go out of his way to appeal to voters and score political points.
George W. Bush — as horrible as he was at every level of policy and whose damage around the world will be felt for years to come — is probably the last principled US president. Obama belongs to the Clinton school of politics: where principles don’t exist — not that they count — and where declared positions can shift and switch depending on the political interests of a president.

Of course, Obama does not disappoint as this was expected. He only disappoints those who believed in him, but those who still believe in him are in dwindling numbers. This is a man who was so desperate to appease to centrist and conservative voters, that he lost his base.

Don’t get me wrong. Obama may still win because, unlike European democracies, we don’t have proportional representation and the electoral system guarantees the victory of one of the two dominant parties.

Liberals feel that they are stuck with whomever is nominated by the Democratic party. This explains why we have such low voter turnout. If we were to believe official numbers that come out of the non-democratic Syria and Iran, they have higher voter turnout than we have in the US.

So according to his tear-jerking account, Obama came to a conclusion about gay and lesbian marriage in the months leading to the general election. For extra measure, Obama invoked his kids. He discussed the situation with them before regaling us with his verdict that: gays and lesbians are human beings and that they should be allowed to marry if they so choose.

Tags

Comments

Submitted by Edward (not verified) on Sun, 2012-05-13 21:48.

This is a poorly written article by a writer who's tone-deaf when comes to American politics. Does AbuKhalil really believe supporting gay marriage - in the wake of a huge loss for gay marriage in the swing state NC - really counts as political opportunism? If so, he doesn't really even make a case for it. The again AbuKhalil own politics are so narrow and unprincipled, (anti-zionism isn't really a coherent political philosophy), one can't even tell if he supports gay marriage.

An "enemy to progress"? What a joke. Obama's statement about his personal views this month is nothing but an election-year symbolic gesture "for" his "progressive base" whom resemble Saudi "liberals" lapdogs, sitting underneath the presidential table, eager for scraps from be thrown to them. Dick Cheney said much the same thing a few years ago, including how the ultimate decision should be left to the states, and did he get any kudos from pwog-types? Of course not...but he wasn't running for reelection.

What that said, I feel this article is incomplete, whether it be how it was intended by As'ad or if it was edited for brevity. Dennis Perrin's account, while being suitably colorful, I found to be more comprehensive with respect to its criticisms.

I agree. It is quite pathetic. Joe Biden and Arne Duncan push him to the left (sad enough in itself) and suddenly the signer of the NDAA and the approver of more extrajudicial executions than Dick Cheney could dream of is now a champion and defender of civil liberties, just in time for the election.

I will "reward" Obama by not voting for either of the two war parties. He should like that, being such a progressive.

I agree with as'ad - i heard he recently did the same with the student loan issue. Again he invoked his personal connection stating that him and his wife have only just finished paying off their student loan. My immediate thoughts were that he's losing his base.

Calling Bush principled needs explanations. What principles did he adhere to? Christian fundamentalist principles? Or maybe the principle of blatant use of violence: If you don't agree with us, screw you.

Obama will win, not because of the two party system, but because he's good for business, and the business club is happy with him. He will raise more money than Romney. And he is the president, so he has more publicity.

Moreover, if suddenly the Palestinian issue was a winning political gambit, would you criticize the president for sanctioning Israel like it deserves? If so, and if that's how you judge politicians, then there's no pleasing you in any political realm and I see you as an enemy to progress.

That's not Abu Khalil's point. His point is that the yes for gay marriage is not free from opportunism. You're objection seems to ignore the entire last four years. You're asking, is it a bad thing, to advance what the people want anyway, if it is also the right thing to do? Well, nothing wrong with that, except what makes you sure that he will keep this promise? The last four years tell a straightforward story: He will not! But when it comes to politics in the US, who cares what happened two weeks ago. It's a TV show anyway!

And as to his overall record: sure, it's a pathetic disappointment, but I don't feel he hasn't kept his promises at all. More or less his entire platform has been enacted or tried to be enacted. Anyone disappointed with those policies obviously wasn't paying attention to what he was actually saying and was swooning over pretty speeches.

This is a ridiculous criticism, As'ad. If anything, this is a risky gambit. Any time gay rights have come up for a vote in this country, they've lost -- even in your more liberal haven of California. For two, he's a politician. That's what pols do. Are you mental?

It's a ridiculous criticism. Criticize where it matters, like on drones and war. If you don't reward him now, all he'll think is, "I can't do anything to please these fucks, so why care?"